Contradictions
Christopher Hitchens points out a few problems concerning the compatibility of religious-right doctrine with that of freedom. To wit:
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. . . . Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some god-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother." And he said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."
The first citation is from Barry Goldwater, moral founder of the Reagan revolution, who, when I interviewed him on his retirement from the Senate, vowed to "kick Jerry Falwell in the ass."
The second citation is from Luke 18:20-22.
I am neither a Republican nor a Christian, and I don’t propose that there is any congruence between Sen. Goldwater’s annoyance and the alleged words (which occur in similar form in all four gospels) of the possibly mythical Nazarene. Yet two things are obvious. The first is that many conservatives appreciate the value of a secular republic, and do not make the idiotic confusion between "secular" and "atheist" that is so common nowadays. The second is that no "Moral Majority" type has yet proposed that the most important commandment, the one underlined by Jesus himself, be displayed in courtrooms or schoolrooms. It turns out that the Eleventh Commandment is not "Thou shalt speak no ill of fellow Republicans," but is, rather, a demand for the most extreme kind of leveling and redistribution.
I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior. The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor’s goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers.
I can only point out that from the age of about 10 to 18, when I left for college, I was caught up in that sort of religious fundamentalism. I’m damn happy to have gathered my wits about me, and I’m damn happy that most of my family has too, over the years.
This might offend some, but I see no essential difference between the fundamentalists of Islam and the fundamentalists of Christianity. The non-essential difference is that one has political power, and the other doesn’t.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Left fundementalism? Yes. Left the fundamental truth's of the Bible? No. And, to equate fundemental Christianity with those who murder and fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up for the sole purpose of killing as many infedels (Christians) as possible is outrageous and false. Everybody has a choice to believe what they want, even polititions. I don't believe it's required by the constitution for government leaders to check their religious conviction at the entrance to capitol or the white house. Why is it that non-believers and I guess even some believers feel so damn threatened by "the religious right." Another question: Why is it that it's always Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who is named as the moralists of the right, while the pope, who is the head of over one billion cahtolics, whose moral principles are nearly identical to those of J.F. and P.R., is hardly ever critisized. And, please, don't tell me is apolitical. Enough said already.
Actually, the contrary. The Catholic establishment has already proven what the orthodox and fundamental can do when they wield political power.
By their own admission, fundamentalists have not changed their beliefs. What's changed is politics, and that's why the Catholics are no longer able to exterminate thousands. The only reason the religious right have not is that they never had the chance, politically.
"Of course, if you hold religion as merely a device to control the actions of the masses, then it all makes perfect sense."
I don't know if I would go so far as to use the word "control." I think that certainly was the case when religious institutions in the west wielded political power, and I believe it certainly would be the case if they wielded political power today (and so would the religion of "Leftism").
The way I look at it, basically, is that believers are spoon-fed a set of doctrines from a very early age, foremost of which is the one fundamental to all religion: "you are subordinate to authority." Of course, the doctrines are impossible to live up to, partly because of their inherent contradictions, and party owing to the fact that the ideal is a "perfect being" and not a human being. Thus, not only is it impossible to live up to the ideal, but miserable failure is assured. So, you have a belief system set up with the express purpose of making people feel like miserable wretches their whole lives.
Guilt is the natural result. And, as I've always said, if you can make people feel guilty, you can effectively influence their behavior.
You make some valuable comments regarding the discrepancy between supposed "holy doctrine" and actual human application of such. I've always marveled at the pick and choose method of Christianity and been amazed at the fractured sects of all the worlds major religions. It would seem to me that the massive contradictions within the dogmas themselves would make followers pause and consider what the truth of their faith really is. Instead, its a problem of the blind follower blindly indoctrinating the blind children without ever trying to reconcile or even acknowledge the inconcistencies they purport to have faith in.
Of course, if you hold religion as merely a device to control the actions of the masses, then it all makes perfect sense.
It's odd religion has brought about some of the best and worst in mankind. Maybe if we didn't have it, we'd be tooling along on a nice even keel.